Prove that Lim x->c f(x)g(x)=0 if Lim x->c f(x)=0 and |g(x)|<K

  • Thread starter Thread starter DumpmeAdrenaline
  • Start date Start date
DumpmeAdrenaline
Messages
80
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Suppose Lim x->c f(x)=0 and that g(x) is bounded by a number K>0 such that |g(x)|<K. Define h by h(x)=f(x)g(x). Prove that Lim x->c h(x)=0.
Relevant Equations
|x-c|<δ -> |f(x)-0|<ϵ
|g(x)|<K
|x-c|<δ -> |f(x)-0|<ϵ
|g(x)|<K
|g(x)||f(x)-0|<K*ϵ
The product of the absolute values equals the absolute value of the product.
|f(x)g(x))|=|h(x)|<K*ϵ
For a range of input values within δ of c, the corresponding outputs can be made within Kϵ of 0. What if g(x) has a jump at x=c but is bounded by K. If approaching x=c from the right g(x) approaches L1 where |L1|<K and if approaching x=c from the left g(x) approaches L2 where |L2|<K. Will the above inequality holds because f(x)=0 and g(x) is bounded though discontinuous fg is again a zero function.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The proposition is true even if ##g## is discontinuous at ##c##.
 
  • Like
Likes DumpmeAdrenaline
It works with zero as a limit since ##0\cdot c = 0## as long as ##c## is any number. If ##c\in \{\pm \infty \}## then we cannot conclude anything, which is why we need that ##g(x)## is bounded. But even if it jumps around, multiplying by zero will result in zero, i.e. the gaps become smaller and smaller if we approach zero. It would not work with any other finite limit.
 
  • Like
Likes DumpmeAdrenaline
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top